Religious people often ignore science. All too often it's a threat to them. It shows with you, and make no mistake, I value spirituality above all. But this game of attacking and ignoring science is common amongst the religious.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Religious people often ignore science. All too often it's a threat to them. It shows with you, and make no mistake, I value spirituality above all. But this game of attacking and ignoring science is common amongst the religious.

There is no science to attack. It's not science. It's been exposed as political activism. Get with the times, man!

Republicans who have a vested interest in sending money to farmers, for one. What states benefit from Ethanol subsidies? What party do those states vote for? What are the voting records of those elected officials of that party with regard to Ethanol?

When they vote (according to their beliefs), for one. Technically, yes, that's an action. But it's not an action you wouldn't support, right?

You raise an excellent question. Is it okay for 51% of the people to vote to use government to force the other 49% to live a certain way? No, it is not.

But that is the system we have. And if you don't vote, you let those who do vote impose their will upon you using violent government.

I vote for candidates and policies that aim to reduce government, to restrain it and keep it from being able to infringe upon our rights. If government did not have the power to infringe upon your rights to life, liberty and property without due process as our Constitution expressly states, those who want to impose their will upon the rest of us could not use government for their purposes as they are now.

That said, it's becoming apparent that voting on a national level is pointless, as the winners have already been picked by the establishment and are all but guaranteed victory.

Republicans who have a vested interest in sending money to farmers, for one. What states benefit from Ethanol subsidies? What party do those states vote for? What are the voting records of those elected officials of that party with regard to Ethanol?

Of course it's not.

Hmm..it's not like there is a Democratic Farm and Labor subset of the Democratic party, or that that Al Gore was a huge champion of Ethanol or anything. You're right...it was all Republicans.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I wonder if Trumpet has noticed he's been on my ignore list for months.

You mean the off-topic cartoons, ad-homs, questions related to caricatured intentions, ranting, accusations and authoritarian demands haven't been aimed at my posts for a while?

Are they ever aimed at anything? You don't read, you rant. You don't have a conversation, you have demands and a list of accusations and rants associated with anyone who doesn't yield to them. It's a pleasure to be ignored by such a person, I assure you. It makes my time around here much, much more pleasant.

New empirical research determines that extreme variation in pH levels of sea waters occurs naturally and frequently. The extremes are so great that marine life is often exposed to "acidified" waters without being threatened in the course of daily life.

Human CO2 emissions are not causing the extreme pH ranges currently existing in sea waters.

The peer-reviewed research by Hofman et al completely vindicates the skeptics' position of ocean acidification and thoroughly exposes the common alarmist position - hysterical leftist / liberal / progressive anti-science that is never able to withstand the scrutiny of scientific empirical research.

Trying to track that to the source and trying to find some UNBIASED INTERPRETATION and failing here. I see one denier site claiming the study negates the mountains of evidence that exist for the impact of global climate change linking to a second denialist site that makes similar claims more verbosely. I would like to see some actual scientists who know what the fuck they are talking about discuss the paper for its merits and its ramifications--not jackasses with denialist agendas.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Trying to track that to the source and trying to find some UNBIASED INTERPRETATION and failing here. I see one denier site claiming the study negates the mountains of evidence that exist for the impact of global climate change linking to a second denialist site that makes similar claims more verbosely. I would like to see some actual scientists who know what the fuck they are talking about discuss the paper for its merits and its ramifications--not jackasses with denialist agendas.

"Moving to a tougher Europe-wide target on greenhouse gas emissions would present the UK with little problem, contrary to what some business lobbyists and thinktanks have been alleging, according to a new analysis of the goals seen by the Guardian.

The report concludes that if the EU were to set higher emissions-cutting goals now, by increasing its current target of a 20% cut by 2020 to a 25% or a 30% cut, it would save money in the medium and long term. The saving in fuel costs alone from a 25% cut would be 20bn a year."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ns-cut-cheaper

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The team found evidence of the fly in 77 percent of the hives they sampled in the Bay Area of California, as well as in some hives in the state’s agricultural Central Valley and in South Dakota. Previous research has found evidence that mites, a virus, a fungus, or a combination of these factors might be responsible for the widespread colony collapse. (Read more about colony collapse disorder in our feature “Solving the Mystery of the Vanishing Bees.”) And with the discovery that this parasitic fly has been quietly killing bees in at least three areas, it might join the list of possible forces behind colony collapse disorder.

Oh look, another graph that tells us nothing. What you and the rest of the AGW whack-a-doos don't understand is that nothing suggests a .6-.8 variance in GAT over 100 years is abnormal.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that in 1880 we could calculate GAT to within .1? Of course not. There is no way temperature records from that time can be that accurate. We even have trouble calculating accurate GAT today.

That graph is convincing to many people, which is exactly what it's intended to do. But change temperature scale to whole degrees or extend it over a couple thousand years, and it looks flat. That doesn't matter to you though, because you still think short-term weather patterns mean something for the long-term climate picture. You also think the Earth will explode if the temperature goes up a single degree on average.

Fuckin A.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Oh look, another graph that tells us nothing. What you and the rest of the AGW whack-a-doos don't understand is that nothing suggests a .6-.8 variance in GAT over 100 years is abnormal.

Secondly, do you honestly believe that in 1880 we could calculate GAT to within .1? Of course not. There is no way temperature records from that time can be that accurate. We even have trouble calculating accurate GAT today.

That graph is convincing to many people, which is exactly what it's intended to do. But change temperature scale to whole degrees or extend it over a couple thousand years, and it looks flat. That doesn't matter to you though, because you still think short-term weather patterns mean something for the long-term climate picture. You also think the Earth will explode if the temperature goes up a single degree on average.

Fuckin A.

One thing I notice about a lot of the data for global warming is that the error bars have been left off.

The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour.

Resolving skepticism about climate change alarmists, she added, is a challenge equitable to overcoming ‘racism or slavery in the U.S. South’.

Perhaps some forcibly administered "vaccine" against this skepticism is in order...or maybe some re-education camps...or just shoot them if they won't get with the program.

More good stuff:

Quote:

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.

And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

Perhaps some forcibly administered "vaccine" against this skepticism is in order...or maybe some re-education camps...or just shoot them if they won't get with the program.

...

That would be a good conversation with my doctor during a checkup. "Do you believe in AGW" "I'm unsure of some of the data. Also as a realist I don't see that we could stop it anyway" "I'm going to recommend a psychological consult"